Are you speaking in the abstract, or would you, personally, like that when reading a blog?
Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no interest in reading anything written by an LLM that I didn't prompt myself, under really any circumstances I can think of.
> Are you speaking in the abstract, or would you, personally, like that when reading a blog?
It's better than the current status quo, where people post LLM writing without attributing it to the LLM, hoping you'll get tricked into reading.
At least if it's labeled like the GP describes, you know what you're getting and can make your own decision.
On the other hand:
> (It might also be the only way to stop training models on their own output)
On the other hand, I think it's a moral imperative to make it so the models train on their own output. I have absolutely no interest in giving them clean input data. After reading about how ISBNdb is helping them destroy old pre-LLM books for input, I totally think someone who does not have small children should start creating print-on-demand forgeries of such books (with the same ISBN numbers) filled with the most garbage-quality LLM text possible.
I don't mind it for footnote/reference-book type material, where you want to have some information available for the curious but 99% of your readers won't care.
A few dense paragraphs about a database implementation that's ancillary to a story about the content of the database, for example; a small percentage of readers might want to reimplement or host A Thing locally and it could be helpful to know that it's this type of database with that number of tables and takes up x gigbytes on disk etc.
the idea of the owners of a small, regional US news website being arrested while traveling in Europe because that site does not have a GDPR compliant cookie policy seems utterly detached from reality
I would be more worried about being struck by a meteorite than such a thing
It is vanishingly unlikely, or would have been, but given that the US has started examining people’s social media, it is not unreasonable to think tit-for-tat might happen.
Again, I agree it is very, very unlikely. But it’s possible, and in an age of mass outrage it isn’t incomprehensible that some activist, somewhere, might latch onto something they don’t like and just doggedly pursue someone. It does happen.
I'm also not trying to get into an argument, but totally disagree, and honestly believe that your attitude leads to an untenable breakdown of the social contract.
I don't agree with use of the tongue-in-cheek term "riff raff" for unhoused people living in tents and shanties on the sideway. And I think such people deserve help.
But yes, they have less of a right to live on the sidewalk than the right of people and businesses that pay rent and expect public spaces that are usable, safe, and free of people so intoxicated that they have lost contact with reality and are not safe to be around.
And I can't disagree with either, especially the riff raff usage, but the term "takeover" was the one intended to play the important role in the sentence. And it wasn't for the unhoused - but the dealers and traffickers.
> All surfaces should be comfortably above the dew point to prevent mold.
I agree that this should be the case, but actually achieving this in the UK (where heating is very expensive and housing is poorly insulated) is prohibitively expensive for many people.
> Maybe some of my difficultly understanding is being American
In the UK, in winter, ambient exterior air is both fairly cold (let's say 40F) and extremely humid, often around 80% relative humidity.
Houses are both poorly insulated and poorly ventilated. Heating is (relatively) very expensive.
Most housing units don't have clothes dryers, and it's common to dry clothing indoors on wire racks.
The net result is that you end up with extremely humid indoor air in the 55F-65F range, while the exterior walls and windows of the building never really heat up properly.
It's a recipe for condensation on the interior surfaces of those walls and windows.
You can fix this either by heating the building enough that the exterior walls actually heat up beyond the dew point (which few people can afford to do), or by keeping windows open in winter to provide some ventilation (which makes the already-poorly-heated building even less comfortable).
After finishing the article, I am left with a much deeper suspicion of the felony murder rule, and of plea deals in general, than I am of giving minors the same sentences as adults.
That's not to say that I agree with giving minors adult sentences. But it doesn't seem the worst thing about the cases discussed here.
In the US this always seems to be called "overdraft protection", as in "do you want overdraft protection on your account?"
I can never remember if overdraft protection means "we won't let your account overdraft", or "we will let your account overdraft"
It is an incredibly confusing name to me
I could look up the answer now, but I know I will just forget it again. I must have looked it up and then forgotten at least 10 separate times over the years
Normally means that if your checking accout balance hits zero, they will pull from your savings account rather than returning a check presented for payment. They may (probably will) still charge you a fee when this happens, but it might be less than an overdraft.
Or, it might be a case where they grant you a short-term personal loan to cover the overdraft (up to some limit) rather than return checks. Again there will be fees and interest on this.
In either case, since they are not rejecting payments, you avoid getting hit with fees from whomever you wrote the check to. So your only fees/penalties are paid to the bank.
Of course the best answer is just keep better track of your checking account balance.
Of course, the funny part about that is that they charge you to check your balance at the ATM. It's almost as if they don't want you to and have to pay their fee.
Which of course is about as odorous fee as possible. You don't have enough money, so we're going to charge you more money?
Source for the claim that nicotine use "ruins" gut health?
My understanding is that the relationship between nicotine and gut health (indeed, overall health) is much more complex and nuanced than that. I know that nicotine has a positive effect on ulcerative colitis symptoms for many sufferers.
Of all the diseases summarized here concerning systemic inflammation, especially in sepsis and endotoxemia, nicotine exerted the most pharmaceutical effect and significantly improved the survival. Next, nicotine is also a potential candidate for treating ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, multiple sclerosis, and myocarditis; the in vivo data provided a much better foundation. For local inflammation, the nicotine administration route may be more important to avoid its accumulation in other healthy organs—for example, the effect of nicotine on arthritis will be more pronounced when nicotine is directly injected into the focus of infection. Perhaps that is why, in the early years, tobacco was used to treat enteritis as enemas (4). It is evident that nicotine has a significant pro-inflammatory effect on periodontitis. However, the latest research also found that nicotine positively affects periodontitis at a lower dosage. In this regard, we consider that the effect of nicotine on periodontitis is mainly due to the influence of inevitable and original oral microbes. At present, most studies focus on the cellular level, and in vivo studies may be limited due to the difficulty of model construction. Therefore, we recommend that individuals with poor oral hygiene avoid excessive direct exposure to nicotine for oral diseases.
>> Source for the claim that nicotine use "ruins" gut health?
Not gut health specifically, but we run the tests on taking nicotine orally for nicotine sprays. It's definitely makes ulcers more likely to happen in short term usage.
What's even worse, it definitely fucks up your neuromodulators, which is very bad for children and young adults. That's a well known fact, it's why it's addictive, and that's why quitting it will make you have very bad mood swings.
The body adjusts to the dopamine spikes by lowering dopamine, and if it happens during brain development, it's just not good. Any addiction during brain development is not good, but especially a chemical one. Kids need to learn what their emotions are and how to control them before they can control them by chewing. Kids usually do it through teens and up to early adulthood.
> What's even worse, it definitely fucks up your neuromodulators
fwiw despite decades of research into nicotine, we have very little data on how bad it actually is at low dosages and via delivery methods other than tobbacco. The vast majority of research on nicotine by itself is in the context of smoking cessation. A lot of the risks people warn about wrt nicotine (dopamine spikes, vasoconstriction, dependence, etc.) is also present in any stimulant, including ADHD medication and even coffee. Also, again, very limited research on this, but some of it suggests nicotine could be helpful for ADHD.
That said, none of this really detract from your point about risks in children, and the trendy delivery methods like vapes and pouches seem to be extremely addictive.
>> we have very little data on how bad it actually is at low dosages and via delivery methods other than tobbacco
Not true, we have a lot of data about using nicotine as pesticide. And quite a lot about oral toxicity. Pharma had nicotine sprays and tablets tasted for decades. Wouldn't be allowed on european market otherwise.
>> A lot of the risks people warn about wrt nicotine (dopamine spikes)
you misunderstand. The dopamine from coffee is purely from a personal enjoyment, while nicotine binds directly into nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain. It doesn't matter how it enters the blood, it will alter neurotransmitter activity.
That's why сytisine is so good for battling a nicotine addiction — it binds the same receptors and prevents the nicotine binding. It's like swapping one addiction for another, except nicotine stays in your system for a week while сytisine leaves quickly (5h).
So, you see, it's not "the same" as coffee, it's more like taking longlasting antianixiety or ADHD meds recreationally.
When you need meds like that, altering your brain chemistry is a desirable outcome, of course. I'm not against drugs overall.
But drugs like that are prescription only for a reason.
>> some of it suggests nicotine could be helpful for ADHD
some of what I've read also suggests that nicotine could be helpful for schizophrenia. But given that we know what mechanism it targets, I fully believe we can find an alternative formula that wouldn't be so toxic to humans.
Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no interest in reading anything written by an LLM that I didn't prompt myself, under really any circumstances I can think of.